Why is """Great""" fiction always boring as shit?

Go back to your containment thread, manchild.

There is none, that's my point. """Great""" fiction is a codeword for books people don't enjoy reading but enjoy being able to say that they read.

Some books get better when you have more life experience. Also some books create good memories which exist long after the process of reading itself.

I look back in nostalgia on some of the books I hated reading.

Good Bait OPpenheimer!

I see how you feel about """Great""" fiction is a codeword. Do you think you can you name some books people don't enjoy reading but enjoy being able to say that they read?

I think it is partly because these days, (specially with how Movies are today) we're used to a "quick ramp up, quick big action piece, quick happily ever after, donezo!" in Film these days you rarely get pieces like 2001 a space odyssey where the camera is allowed to just linger on something that has no real importance besides evoking a certain mood. Stuff must be happening all the time. (That's not to say that these kind of films are not made any more, they're just more rare) and I feel like the same certainly is true for books. So the "greats" which are usually older allows themselves to just let shit happen even if it isn't necessarily important or working towards any "plot" and nowhere is that more apparent then in the "lord of the rings" books because for the most part they are fucking boring books. Sure, the actual story beats are pretty well done and samwise is a great hero, but there is SO MUCH shit in those books (or one fuckHUEG book as he originally intended) that does nothing but tell you "oh and these guys also exist for some reason".
Now to go light on Tolkien one of the reasons why that is, is because he disliked that his country was a bit lacking in mythology and folklore like lots of the European countries had. So he set out to make his own and that is why besides the story of "little fucker brings ring to volcano" His books also feature all sorts of people, creatures, a whole pantheon full of gods and demi gods and so on.

Because of infantilization of culture.

Because the idea that art is everlasting is more or less a bullshit myth - it's a craft like any other - and like any other craft, it took time to develop. Most people shun modern works because they're "too fast and because of that thoughtless" which I find very wrong - you can have meaning implied, conveyed through actions etc. So you can keep the pace, while making sense and profound moments. I think a good example is Cloud Atlas.
But all this doesn't mean I entirely agree with you OP - some classics I found great when I read them in middle school (I found Notes from Underground interesting after middle school, btw), like The Stranger, Pygmalion (also after middle school), Anna Karenina (somewhat), Crime and Punishment (even less, but still). Maybe there's more, but I can't remember. They either have something that resonates to me despite being them being slog-ish (Karenina, but Levin resonates to me much more), or they're a anomaly in the Matrix, and are written well despite their age (Pygmalion; though I also like the content, I don't like things that just have good style, mostly).
Besides that, I think a major reason is that old literature is just that - old - it deals with old ways of life that just aren't relevant to us anymore. For instance, I couldn't get the importance of Inferno in middle school because I don't know these ancient politicians and other notables (notable only to the people of that time period).
Or it has been done better or whatever - Herbert is IMO far superior to, for example, Dostoevsky, he even did the Jesus comeback bit and BTFO the trope.

Because most of it is from the relatively ancient past when people had different ideas of what was great.

It's probably because you're reading books like movies when they're very different mediums. Films are, more or less, to be experienced passively, and a great film will convey emotions simply through the art of cinematography. It will "show" and not "tell", in other words. Great fiction, on the other hand, will "tell" more often than not, and the art is in the way the telling is done. There is craftsmanship right down to the word choice, and each sound weaves into the next, and beyond that there is a beautiful rhythm of sound. The story is also important, but it functions as a theme does in a composition. And in any composition worth a salt, there's so much more to be interested in than the main melodic function.

>So he set out to make his own
its just kalevala

Great literature isn't boring. That salaryman's story is as gripping as interstellar machinations. The riot lies beneath the plot -- guilt and fear and longing and hopelessness may ride through any story, whether the characters wear bronze armour or grey suits. The conflict -- you are reading for conflict, yes? -- is in more than the aesthetics. The conflict doesn't flow from wormtooth daggers or Valyrian steel. The aesthetics alone are hollow and boring. Don't believe me? Pick up a shitty ASoIaF-clone at your local Barnes.

The language doesn't matter. You don't have a low attention span. You're not used to a "quick ramp up". Books aren't especially passive. You were just looking for excitement in the wrong places.

Well it's only "boring" if you don't value getting something out of it. If you do, it's entertaining in its own. Whereas entertainment is just consumption I feel like "classic lit" and all like it have a purpose and give you something new. Things like game of thrones may be "fun" to watch/read but they hold 0 impact on my life or my mind after I'm done, whereas high lit holds an impact on both depending on how into it I was.